I'm going to share with you a paradigm-shifting perspective on the issues of gender violence: sexual assault, domestic violence, relationship abuse, sexual harassment, sexual abuse of children. That whole range of issues that I'll refer to in shorthand as "gender violence issues," they've been seen as women's issues that some good men help out with, but I have a problem with that frame and I don't accept it. I don't see these as women's issues that some good men help out with. In fact, I'm going to argue that these are men's issues, first and foremost. Now obviously --
Podeliću sa vama pogled koji menja obrazac viđenja rodnog nasilja - silovanje, nasilje u porodici, maltretiranje u vezi, seksualno uznemiravanje, seksualno iskorišćavanje dece. Čitav spektar problema koji se ukratko nazivaju "problemima rodnog nasilja" i viđeni su kao ženske poteškoće u vezi sa kojima pomažu neki dobri muškarci, ali imam problem sa tim okvirom i ne prihvatam ga. Ne vidim to kao ženske probleme koje rešavaju dobri muškarci. Zapravo, obrazložiću vam da su ovo prvenstveno muški problemi. (Aplauz)
(Applause)
Obviously, they're also women's issues, so I appreciate that, but calling gender violence a women's issue is part of the problem, for a number of reasons.
Očigledno, to su i ženski problemi što i razumem, ali nazivati rodno nasilje ženskim problemom je samo deo problema iz brojnih razloga.
The first is that it gives men an excuse not to pay attention, right? A lot of men hear the term "women's issues" and we tend to tune it out, and we think, "I'm a guy; that's for the girls," or "that's for the women." And a lot of men literally don't get beyond the first sentence as a result. It's almost like a chip in our brain is activated, and the neural pathways take our attention in a different direction when we hear the term "women's issues." This is also true, by the way, of the word "gender," because a lot of people hear the word "gender" and they think it means "women." So they think that gender issues is synonymous with women's issues. There's some confusion about the term gender.
Prvi je da to daje muškarcima izgovor da ne vode računa. Zar ne? Puno muškaraca čuje termin "ženski problemi" i težimo da ih zanemarimo, pa razmišljamo: "Hej, ja sam muško. To je za devojke" ili " To je za žene." A kao posledica toga, dosta muškaraca ne ode dalje od prve rečenice. Skoro kao da je čip u našim mozgovima aktiviran i nervni putevi vode našu pažnju u drugom smeru kada čujemo termin "ženski problemi". Ovo inače takođe važi i za reč "rod" jer dosta ljudi kad čuje reč "rod" misli da to znači "žena". Stoga misle da su rodni problemi sinonim za ženske probleme. Postoje neke zabune u vezi sa terminom "rod".
And let me illustrate that confusion by way of analogy. So let's talk for a moment about race. In the US, when we hear the word "race," a lot of people think that means African-American, Latino, Asian-American, Native American, South Asian, Pacific Islander, on and on. A lot of people, when they hear the word "sexual orientation" think it means gay, lesbian, bisexual. And a lot of people, when they hear the word "gender," think it means women. In each case, the dominant group doesn't get paid attention to. As if white people don't have some sort of racial identity or belong to some racial category or construct, as if heterosexual people don't have a sexual orientation, as if men don't have a gender. This is one of the ways that dominant systems maintain and reproduce themselves, which is to say the dominant group is rarely challenged to even think about its dominance, because that's one of the key characteristics of power and privilege, the ability to go unexamined, lacking introspection, in fact being rendered invisible, in large measure, in the discourse about issues that are primarily about us. And this is amazing how this works in domestic and sexual violence, how men have been largely erased from so much of the conversation about a subject that is centrally about men.
Dozvolite mi da vam ilustrujem te zabune putem analogije. Hajde na kratko da pričamo o rasi. U Americi, kad čujemo reč "rasa" dosta ljudi misli da to znači: Afro-amerikanac, Latinos, Azijski Amerikanac, Indijanac, južni Azijat, pacifički ostrvljanin, i tako dalje. Dosta ljudi, kada čuju reč "seksualna orijentacija" misle da to znači: gej, lezbijka, biseksualac. A puno ljudi kada čuje reč "rod" misle da to znači: žene. U svakom od navedenih slučajeva, ne obraća se pažnja na dominantnu grupu. Zar ne? Kao da belci nemaju neku vrstu rasnog identiteta ili da ne pripadaju nekoj rasnoj kategoriji i ustrojstvu, kao da heteroseksualci nemaju seksualnu orijentaciju, kao da muškarci nemaju rod. Ovo je jedan od načina da se dominantni sistemi održe i reprodukuju, što znači da je dominatna grupa retko izazvana da čak i razmišlja o svojoj dominantnosti jer je to jedna od ključnih karakteristika snage i privilegije, mogućnost da se prolazi neispitano u nedostatku introspekcije, zapravo biti prikazan nevidljivim u velikoj meri u raspravi o problemima koji se tiču prvenstveno nas. A takođe je neverovatno kako ovo funkcioniše u porodičnom i seksualnom nasilju, kako su muškarci prilično izostavljeni iz mnogih razgovora o temi
And I'm going to illustrate what I'm talking about
koja je centralno u vezi sa njima.
by using the old tech. I'm old school on some fundamental regards. I make films and I work with high tech, but I'm still old school as an educator, and I want to share with you this exercise that illustrates on the sentence-structure level how the way that we think, literally the way that we use language, conspires to keep our attention off of men. This is about domestic violence in particular, but you can plug in other analogues. This comes from the work of the feminist linguist Julia Penelope.
Ilustrovaću vam ovo o čemu pričam koristeći staru tehnologiju. Staromodan sam po pitanju osnovnih gledišta. Pravim filmove i radim sa visokom tehnologijom ali sam i dalje staromodan kao nastavnik. Želim da podelim sa vama ovu vežbu koja na nivou strukture rečenice opisuje kako nam način na koji razmišljamo, doslovno način na koji koristimo svoj jezik, pomaže da držimo našu pažnju dalje od muškaraca. Ovo je prvenstveno u vezi sa porodičnim nasiljem, ali možete to povezati i sa ostalim analogijama. Ovo potiče od rada feminističke lingvistkinje Džulije Penelopi.
It starts with a very basic English sentence: "John beat Mary." That's a good English sentence. John is the subject, beat is the verb, Mary is the object, good sentence. Now we're going to move to the second sentence, which says the same thing in the passive voice. "Mary was beaten by John." And now a whole lot has happened in one sentence. We've gone from "John beat Mary" to "Mary was beaten by John." We've shifted our focus in one sentence from John to Mary, and you can see John is very close to the end of the sentence, well, close to dropping off the map of our psychic plain. The third sentence, John is dropped, and we have, "Mary was beaten," and now it's all about Mary. We're not even thinking about John, it's totally focused on Mary. Over the past generation, the term we've used synonymous with "beaten" is "battered," so we have "Mary was battered." And the final sentence in this sequence, flowing from the others, is, "Mary is a battered woman." So now Mary's very identity -- Mary is a battered woman -- is what was done to her by John in the first instance. But we've demonstrated that John has long ago left the conversation.
Počinje prostom engleskom rečenicom: "Don je istukao Meri." To je dobra engleska rečenica. Džon je subjekat. Tući je glagol. Meri je objekat. Dobra rečenica. Preći ćemo na sledeću rečenicu, koja kaže istu stvar u pasivu. "Meri je istučena od strane Džona". Sada se dosta stvari desilo u jednoj rečenici. Prešli smo sa "Džon je istukao Meri" na "Meri je istučena od strane Džona". Prebacili smo svoju pažnju u jednoj rečenici sa Džona na Meri i kao što vidite, Džon je veoma blizu kraja rečenice, pa, skoro blizu ispadanja sa mape naše psihičke ravni. U trećoj rečenicai Džon je izuzet i imamo "Meri je pretučena", i sad se sve tiče Meri. Čak ni ne razmišljamo o Džonu. Skroz smo usredsređeni na Meri. Tokom prošlih generacija, termin koji smo koristili kao sinonim za "pretučena" je bio: "umlaćena", pa tako imamo "Meri je umlaćena". Konačna rečenica u ovom sledu, prateći prethodne, je "Meri je umlaćena žena". Stoga je sad Merin identitet - Meri je pretučena žena - ono što joj je učinjeno od strane Džona u prvoj rečenici. Ali smo pokazali da je Džon odavno napustio ovu priču.
Those of us who work in the domestic and sexual violence field know that victim-blaming is pervasive in this realm, which is to say, blaming the person to whom something was done rather than the person who did it. And we say: why do they go out with these men? Why are they attracted to them? Why do they keep going back? What was she wearing at that party? What a stupid thing to do. Why was she drinking with those guys in that hotel room? This is victim blaming, and there are many reasons for it, but one is that our cognitive structure is set up to blame victims. This is all unconscious. Our whole cognitive structure is set up to ask questions about women and women's choices and what they're doing, thinking, wearing. And I'm not going to shout down people who ask questions about women. It's a legitimate thing to ask. But's let's be clear: Asking questions about Mary is not going to get us anywhere in terms of preventing violence.
Mi koji radimo u sektoru porodičnog i seksualnog nasilja znamo da je okrivljavanje žrtve veoma prisutno u ovoj oblasti, odnosno, svaljivanje krivice na osobu kojoj je nešto učinjeno, a ne na osobu koja je to učinila. Pitamo se zašto ove žene izlaze sa ovakvim muškarcima? Zašto ih privlače takvi muškarci? Zašto se stalno vraćaju? Šta je nosila na žurci? Kakav glup postupak. Zašto je pila sa tom grupom muškaraca u toj hotelskoj sobi? Ovo je svaljivanje krivice na žrtvu i postoji veliki broj razloga za to, ali jedan od njih je taj da je čitava naša saznajna struktura podešena da krivi žrtve. To radimo nesvesno. Čitava naša saznajna struktura je podešena da postavlja pitanja o ženama i ženskim izborima i o tome šta one rade, šta misle i oblače. Neću ućutkivati ljude koji postavljaju pitanja o ženama. Legitimno je to pitati. Ali budimo načisto: postavljanje pitanja o Meri
We have to ask a different set of questions.
neće nas odvesti nigde što se tiče prevencije nasilja.
The questions are not about Mary, they're about John. They include things like, why does John beat Mary? Why is domestic violence still a big problem in the US and all over the world? What's going on? Why do so many men abuse physically, emotionally, verbally, and other ways, the women and girls, and the men and boys, that they claim to love? What's going on with men? Why do so many adult men sexually abuse little girls and boys? Why is that a common problem in our society and all over the world today? Why do we hear over and over again about new scandals erupting in major institutions like the Catholic Church or the Penn State football program or the Boy Scouts of America, on and on and on? And then local communities all over the country and all over the world. We hear about it all the time. The sexual abuse of children. What's going on with men? Why do so many men rape women in our society and around the world? Why do so many men rape other men? What is going on with men? And then what is the role of the various institutions in our society that are helping to produce abusive men at pandemic rates?
Treba da postavljamo drugačija pitanja. Vidite šta želim da postignem ovim, zar ne? Pitanja se ne tiču Meri, već Džona. Ona uključuju stvari poput: zašto Džon tuče Meri? Zašto je porodično nasilje i dalje veliki problem u Americi i čitavom svetu? Šta se dešava? Zašto toliko muškaraca zlostavlja, fizički, emocionalno, verbalno i na druge načine, žene i devojke, muškarce i dečake za koje tvrde da ih vole? Šta se dešava sa muškarcima? Zašto toliko odraslih muškaraca seksualno zlostavlja devojčice i dečake? Zašto je to tako čest problem u našem društvu i širom sveta danas? Zašto slušamo stalno iznova o novim skandalima koji izbijaju u velikim institucijama poput katoličke crkve ili fudbalskog programa države Pensilvanije ili Saveza izviđača Amerike i tako dalje, i tako dalje? A onda slede i lokalne zajednice širom zemlje i sveta. Slušamo o tome sve vreme. Seksualno uznemiravanje dece. Šta se dešava sa muškarcima? Zašto toliko muškaraca siluje žene u našem društvu i celom svetu? Zašto toliko muškaraca siluje druge muškarce? Šta je to sa njima? A šta je sa ulogom različitih institucija u našem društvu koje potpomažu stvaranje muškaraca zlostavljača
Because this isn't about individual perpetrators. That's a naive way to understanding what is a much deeper and more systematic social problem. The perpetrators aren't these monsters who crawl out of the swamp and come into town and do their nasty business and then retreat into the darkness. That's a very naive notion, right? Perpetrators are much more normal than that, and everyday than that. So the question is, what are we doing here in our society and in the world? What are the roles of various institutions in helping to produce abusive men? What's the role of religious belief systems, the sports culture, the pornography culture, the family structure, economics, and how that intersects, and race and ethnicity and how that intersects? How does all this work?
u pandemičnim razmerama? Jer ne radi se o individualnim zločincima. Ovo je naivan način da se shvati ono što je mnogo dublji i sistematičniji društveni problem. Zločinci nisu meka čudovišta koja izranjaju iz bare i dolaze u grad i obavljaju svoj gnusni posao i nestaju nazad u noć. Ovo je veoma naivno gledište, zar ne? Zločinci su mnogo običniji od toga i svakodnevniji. Dakle, pitanje je šta mi činimo ovde u našem društvu i u svetu? Koje su uloge različitih institucija u stvaranju agresivnih muškaraca? Koja je uloga religioznih sistema verovanja, sportske kulture, pornografske kulture, strukture porodice, ekonomije i onoga kako se to ukršta, rase i nacionalnosti i kako se one međusobno ukrštaju? Kako sve to funkcioniše?
And then, once we start making those kinds of connections and asking those important and big questions, then we can talk about how we can be transformative, in other words, how can we do something differently? How can we change the practices? How can we change the socialization of boys and the definitions of manhood that lead to these current outcomes? These are the kind of questions that we need to be asking and the kind of work that we need to be doing, but if we're endlessly focused on what women are doing and thinking in relationships or elsewhere, we're not going to get to that piece.
Kad počnemo da pravimo takve veze i postavljamo ova važna i krupna pitanja, tek tada možemo da govorimo o tome kako se možemo menjati ili drugim rečima, kako možemo da uradimo nešto drugačije? Kako možemo da promenimo praksu? Kako možemo promeniti socijalizaciju dečaka i definiciju muškosti koje dovode do ovakvih ishoda danas? Ovo su neka od pitanja koja treba da postavljamo i neki od zadataka koje treba da ispunimo ali ako smo beskrajno fokusirani na ono što žene rade i misle u vezama ili na nekom drugom mestu, nećemo stići do cilja.
I understand that a lot of women who have been trying to speak out about these issues, today and yesterday and for years and years, often get shouted down for their efforts. They get called nasty names like "male-basher" and "man-hater," and the disgusting and offensive "feminazi", right? And you know what all this is about? It's called kill the messenger. It's because the women who are standing up and speaking out for themselves and for other women as well as for men and boys, it's a statement to them to sit down and shut up, keep the current system in place, because we don't like it when people rock the boat. We don't like it when people challenge our power. You'd better sit down and shut up, basically. And thank goodness that women haven't done that. Thank goodness that we live in a world where there's so much women's leadership that can counteract that.
Razumem da dosta žena koje su pokušavale da govore javno o ovim problemima, danas, juče i godinama unazad, često budu ućutkane kad ulože takve napore. Nazivaju ih imenima poput: "protivnica muškaraca" ili "mrziteljka muškaraca" ili odvratno i uvredljivo: "feminacista". Zar ne? A znate o čemu se ovde radi? Zove se: ubiti glasnika. Zato što žene koje se usprotive i govore javno u svoje ime i u ime drugih žena, kao i u ime muškaraca i dečaka, za njih je naredba da sede i ćute, drže trenutno stanje takvim kakvo je jer ne volimo ljude koji talasaju. Ne volimo kad ljudi iskušavaju našu snagu. Bolje sedi i ćuti, u suštini. Hvala bogu da žene nisu to uradile. Hvala bogu, živimo u vremenu gde ima toliko ženskog vođstva koje se tome suprotstavlja. Ali jedna od snažnih uloga koje muškarci mogu odigrati u ovom poslu
But one of the powerful roles that men can play in this work is that we can say some things that sometimes women can't say, or, better yet, we can be heard saying some things that women often can't be heard saying. Now, I appreciate that that's a problem, it's sexism, but it's the truth. So one of the things that I say to men, and my colleagues and I always say this, is we need more men who have the courage and the strength to start standing up and saying some of this stuff, and standing with women and not against them and pretending that somehow this is a battle between the sexes and other kinds of nonsense. We live in the world together.
je ta da možemo da kažemo neke stvari koje žene ponekad ne mogu da kažu ili, još bolje, mogu da nas čuju da govorimo neke stvari koje se od žena ne čuju često. Priznajem da je to problem. To je seksizam. Ali to je istina. Jedna od stvari koje uvek govorim muškarcima, i moje kolege takođe, je da nam treba više muškaraca koji imaju hrabrosti i snage da počnu da govore neke od ovih stvari, i da stoje uz žene, a ne protiv njih pretvarajući se da je ovo nekakva bitka između polova ili neka slična glupost. Živimo zajedno na ovom svetu. I uzgred, jedna od stvari koja me zaista muči
And by the way, one of the things that really bothers me about some of the rhetoric against feminists and others who have built the battered women's and rape crisis movements around the world is that somehow, like I said, that they're anti-male. What about all the boys who are profoundly affected in a negative way by what some adult man is doing against their mother, themselves, their sisters? What about all those boys? What about all the young men and boys who have been traumatized by adult men's violence? You know what? The same system that produces men who abuse women, produces men who abuse other men. And if we want to talk about male victims, let's talk about male victims. Most male victims of violence are the victims of other men's violence. So that's something that both women and men have in common. We are both victims of men's violence. So we have it in our direct self-interest, not to mention the fact that most men that I know have women and girls that we care deeply about, in our families and our friendship circles and every other way. So there's so many reasons why we need men to speak out. It seems obvious saying it out loud, doesn't it? Now, the nature of the work that I do and my colleagues do in the sports culture and the US military, in schools, we pioneered this approach called the bystander approach to gender-violence prevention.
u vezi sa jednim delom retorike protiv feministkinja i onih koji su stvorili "umlaćene žene" i pokrete protiv krize silovanja širom sveta je da je ona nekako, kao što sam rekao, antimuška. Šta je sa dečacima koji su duboko pogođeni na negativan način onim što odrasli muškarci rade protiv njihovih majki i sestara, njih samih? Šta je sa tim dečacima? Šta je sa svim momcima i dečacima koji su pretrpeli traume od nasilja odraslih muškaraca? Znate šta? Isti sistem proizvodi i one koji zlostavljaju žene i one koji zlostavljaju druge muškarce. Ako želimo da govorimo o muškim žrtvama hajde da se osvrnemo malo na njih. Najveći broj muških žrtava nasilja su oni koje su muškarci zlostavljali. To i muškarci i žene imaju zajedničko. Svi smo žrtve muškog nasilja. To nam je direktno u interesu, da ne pominjem činjenicu da većina muškaraca koje poznajem imaju žene i devojčice za koje se veoma brinemo, u svojim porodicama i krugovima prijatelja i na bilo koji drugi način. Tako da postoji mnogo razloga zašto muškarci treba da govore javno. Deluje očigledno kad se to kaže. Zar ne? Priroda posla kojim se moje kolege i ja bavimo, u sportskoj kulturi i američkoj vojsci, u školama - pokrenuli smo ovaj pristup koji zovemo posmatrački pristup sprečavanju rodnog nasilja.
And I just want to give you the highlights of the bystander approach, because it's a big thematic shift, although there's lots of particulars, but the heart of it is, instead of seeing men as perpetrators and women as victims, or women as perpetrators, men as victims, or any combination in there. I'm using the gender binary. I know there's more than men and women, there's more than male and female. And there are women who are perpetrators, and of course there are men who are victims. There's a whole spectrum. But instead of seeing it in the binary fashion, we focus on all of us as what we call bystanders, and a bystander is defined as anybody who is not a perpetrator or a victim in a given situation, so in other words friends, teammates, colleagues, coworkers, family members, those of us who are not directly involved in a dyad of abuse, but we are embedded in social, family, work, school, and other peer culture relationships with people who might be in that situation. What do we do? How do we speak up? How do we challenge our friends? How do we support our friends? But how do we not remain silent in the face of abuse?
Želim da vam istaknem karakteristike posmatračkog pristupa jer je to veliki tematski pomak, iako postoji još puno specifičnosti, ali srž ovoga je, umesto gledanja na muškarce kao na zločince i žene kao žrtve, ili žene kao zločince, a muškarce kao žrtve, ili bilo koju od kombinacija. Koristim rodnu dvojakost. Znam da tu ima mnogo više od muškaraca i žena, mnogo više od muškog i ženskog. Postoje i žene kao zločinci i naravno muškarci kao žrtve. To je čitav sprektar. Ali umesto dvojakog posmatranja, fokusiramo se na sve nas kao posmatrače, a posmatrač je definisan kao neko ko nije zločinac ili žrtva u datoj situaciji, drugim rečima: prijatelji, članovi tima, kolege, članovi porodice, svi mi koji nismo direktno uključeni u dijadu zlostavljanja, ali smo ukorenjeni u društvo, porodicu, posao, školu i druge sfere kulturnih veza sa ljudima koji se mogu naći u takvoj situaciji. Šta mi radimo? Kako o tome govorimo? Kako preispitujemo svoje prijatelje? Kako ih podržavamo? Kako ne ostajemo nemi na nasilje?
Now, when it comes to men and male culture, the goal is to get men who are not abusive to challenge men who are. And when I say abusive, I don't mean just men who are beating women. We're not just saying a man whose friend is abusing his girlfriend needs to stop the guy at the moment of attack. That's a naive way of creating a social change. It's along a continuum, we're trying to get men to interrupt each other. So, for example, if you're a guy and you're in a group of guys playing poker, talking, hanging out, no women present, and another guy says something sexist or degrading or harassing about women, instead of laughing along or pretending you didn't hear it, we need men to say, "Hey, that's not funny. that could be my sister you're talking about, and could you joke about something else? Or could you talk about something else? I don't appreciate that kind of talk." Just like if you're a white person and another white person makes a racist comment, you'd hope, I hope, that white people would interrupt that racist enactment by a fellow white person. Just like with heterosexism, if you're a heterosexual person and you yourself don't enact harassing or abusive behaviors towards people of varying sexual orientations, if you don't say something in the face of other heterosexual people doing that, then, in a sense, isn't your silence a form of consent and complicity?
Kada se radi o muškarcima i muškoj kulturi, cilj je da dopremo do muškaraca koji nisu zlostavljači da izazovu muškarce koji to jesu. A kad kažem zlostavljači, ne mislim samo na one koji tuku žene. Ne govorimo da muškarac čiji prijatelj zlostavlja svoju devojku treba da zaustavi njega u momentu napada. To je naivan način stvaranja društvenih promena. Radi se o kontinuitetu, pokušavamo da nateramo muškarce da prekinu jedni druge. Na primer, ukoliko ste muškarac i nalazite se u grupi muškaraca koji igraju poker, pričaju, druže se, bez prisustva žena i drugi muškarac kaže nešto seksistički, degradirajuće ili neprimereno o ženama, umesto smejanja i pretvaranja da niste čuli to, treba da postoji muškarac koji će reći: "Hej, to nije smešno. To bi mogla biti moja sestra o kojoj govoriš. Možeš li da se šališ na račun nečeg drugog?" Ili: "Da li bi mogao da govoriš o nečemu drugom? Ne sviđa mi se ta vrsta razgovora." Isto kao i u situaciji kad ste belac i druga bela osoba daje rasističke komentare, nadamo se da bi belci trebalo da prekinu tu rasističku priču. Kao i kod heteroseksualizma, ukoliko ste heteorseksualac, i ne ponašate se mučiteljski ili zlostavljački protiv ljudi raznih seksualnih opredeljenja, ako ne kažete nešto u lice drugom heteroseksualcu koji se ponaša tako, u tom slučaju, zar nije vaše ćutanje neka vrsta saglasnosti i saučesništva?
Well, the bystander approach is trying to give people tools to interrupt that process and to speak up and to create a peer culture climate where the abusive behavior will be seen as unacceptable, not just because it's illegal, but because it's wrong and unacceptable in the peer culture. And if we can get to the place where men who act out in sexist ways will lose status, young men and boys who act out in sexist and harassing ways towards girls and women, as well as towards other boys and men, will lose status as a result of it, guess what? We'll see a radical diminution of the abuse. Because the typical perpetrator is not sick and twisted. He's a normal guy in every other way, isn't he?
Posmatrački pristup pokušava da pruži ljudima alate kojima će prekinuti taj proces i pričati glasno o problemu i stvoriti kulturnu klimu u vršnjačkoj grupi gde će zlostavljanje biti viđeno kao neprihvatljivo ne samo zato što je ono ilegalno, već zato što je loše i neprihvatljivo u vršnjačkoj kulturi. Ako bismo mogli da dođemo do nivoa gde će muškarci koji se ponašaju seksistički izgubiti svoj status, mladi muškarci i dečaci koji se ponašaju seksistički i agresivno prema devojkama i ženama, kao i prema drugim dečacima i muškarcima, izgubiti status kao rezultat tih radnji. Šta će se tad desiti? Tada ćemo videti drastično smanjenje zlostavljanja. Jer tipičan zlostavljač nije bolestan i uvrnut.
Now, among the many great things that Martin Luther King said in his short life was, "In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends." In the end, what will hurt the most is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. There's been an awful lot of silence in male culture about this ongoing tragedy of men's violence against women and children, hasn't there? There's been an awful lot of silence. And all I'm saying is that we need to break that silence, and we need more men to do that.
On je normalan čovek u svakom drugom pogledu. Zar ne? Među velikim brojem sjajnih stvari koje je Martin Luter King rekao u svom kratkom životu bilo je: "Na kraju, ono što će najviše boleti nisu reči neprijatelja već ćutanje naših prijatelja." Na kraju ono što će nas najviše boleti nisu reči naših neprijatelja već ćutanje naših prijatelja. Bilo je veoma puno ćutanja u muškoj kulturi o ovoj tekućoj tragediji muškog nasilja nad ženama i decom, zar ne? Bilo je previše ćutanja. Sve što hoću da kažem je da treba da prekinemo ćutanje i treba nam da to učini više muškaraca.
Now, it's easier said than done, because I'm saying it now, but I'm telling you it's not easy in male culture for guys to challenge each other, which is one of the reasons why part of the paradigm shift that has to happen is not just understanding these issues as men's issues, but they're also leadership issues for men. Because ultimately, the responsibility for taking a stand on these issues should not fall on the shoulders of little boys or teenage boys in high school or college men. It should be on adult men with power. Adult men with power are the ones we need to be holding accountable for being leaders on these issues, because when somebody speaks up in a peer culture and challenges and interrupts, he or she is being a leader, really. But on a big scale, we need more adult men with power to start prioritizing these issues, and we haven't seen that yet, have we?
Naravno, lakše je reći nego učiniti, jer ja sad o tome govorim, ali govorim vam da nije lako u muškoj kulturi za muškarce da izazovu jedni druge, što je jedan od razloga zašto deo promene obrasca koja treba da se desi nije samo shvatanje ovih problema kao muških, već su oni takođe problemi vođstva za muškarce. Jer konačno, odgovornost za suprotstavljanje ovim problemima ne treba da padne na ramena malih dečaka, tinejdžera u srednjim školama ili studenata. Treba da bude odgovornost odraslih muškaraca koji imaju moć. Odrasli koji imaju moć su oni koje treba da smatramo odgovornim za poziciju vođa u ovim problemima, jer kad neko govori javno u vršnjačkoj kulturi i izaziva i sprečava, on ili ona je zaista vođa, zar ne? Ali na višem nivou, treba nam više muškaraca koji imaju moć da počnemo da dajemo prednost ovim problemima, a to nismo još uvek videli, zar ne?
Now, I was at a dinner a number of years ago, and I work extensively with the US military, all the services. And I was at this dinner and this woman said to me -- I think she thought she was a little clever -- she said, "So how long have you been doing sensitivity training with the Marines?"
Bio sam na jednoj večeri pre nekoliko godina, radim intenzivno sa američkom vojskom, sa svim službama. I bio sam na večeri i jedna žena me je pitala, mislim da je smatrala da je pomalo lukava, pitala je: "Koliko dugo radite treninge osetljivosti sa marincima?"
And I said, "With all due respect, I don't do sensitivity training with the Marines. I run a leadership program in the Marine Corps."
Rekao sam joj: "Uz svo dužno poštovanje ja ne radim trenige osetljivosti sa marincima. Ja vodim program liderstva u Korpusu mornaričke pešadije."
Now, I know it's a bit pompous, my response, but it's an important distinction, because I don't believe that what we need is sensitivity training. We need leadership training, because, for example, when a professional coach or a manager of a baseball team or a football team -- and I work extensively in that realm as well -- makes a sexist comment, makes a homophobic statement, makes a racist comment, there will be discussions on the sports blogs and in sports talk radio. And some people will say, "He needs sensitivity training." Other people will say, "Well, get off it. That's political correctness run amok, he made a stupid statement, move on." My argument is, he doesn't need sensitivity training. He needs leadership training, because he's being a bad leader, because in a society with gender diversity and sexual diversity --
Znam da je moj odgovor pomalo pompezan, ali je važna razlika, jer ne verujem da nam treba obuka osetljivosti. Treba nam obuka vođstva, jer, na primer, kad profesionalni trener ili menadžer bejzbol ili fudbalskog tima - a radim dosta i u tom sektoru - daje seksističke komentare, homofobične izjave ili čak rasističke, pokrenuće se diskusije na sportskim blogovima ili sportskim radio emisijama. Neki ljudi će reći: "Pa, treba nam obuka osetljivosti." A drugi će reći: "Ma ne treba. Znate, to je besomučna politička korektnost i on je dao glupu izjavu. Produži dalje." Moj argument je: ne treba mu obuka osetljivosti. Treba mu obuka o vođstvu jer je on loš vođa, jer u društvu sa rodnom i seksualnom različitošću -
(Applause)
(Aplauz) -
and racial and ethnic diversity, you make those kind of comments, you're failing at your leadership. If we can make this point that I'm making to powerful men and women in our society at all levels of institutional authority and power, it's going to change the paradigm of people's thinking.
i rasnom i etničkom raznovrsnošći, vi dajete tu vrstu komentara i ne uspevate u svom vođstvu. Kad bismo mogli da prenesemo poruku koju pokušavam da prenesem moćnim muškarcima i ženama u našem društvu na svim nivoima institucionalnog autoriteta i moći, promeniće se modeli judskog razmišljanja.
You know, for example, I work a lot in college and university athletics throughout North America. We know so much about how to prevent domestic and sexual violence, right? There's no excuse for a college or university to not have domestic and sexual violence prevention training mandated for all student athletes, coaches, administrators, as part of their educational process. We know enough to know that we can easily do that. But you know what's missing? The leadership. But it's not the leadership of student athletes. It's the leadership of the athletic director, the president of the university, the people in charge who make decisions about resources and who make decisions about priorities in the institutional settings. That's a failure, in most cases, of men's leadership.
Na primer, radim dosta na atletici na koledžima i univerzitetima širom Severne Amerike. Znamo toliko o tome kako sprečiti porodično i seksualno nasilje, zar ne? Nema izgovora za koledže i univerzitete da nemaju obuku sprečavanja porodičnog i seksualnog nasilja namenjenu svim studentima sportistima, trenerima, administratorima kao deo njihovog obrazovnog procesa. Znamo dovoljno o tome da možemo jednostavno to da uradimo. Ali znate šta nedostaje? Vođstvo. Ali to nije vođstvo studenata sportista. To je vođstvo rukovodioca sportista, predsednika univerziteta, ljudi koji su odgovorni, onih koji donose odluke o izvorima i onih koji odlučuju o prioritetima u institucionalnim okvirima. U većini slučajeva, to je neuspeh muškog vođstva.
Look at Penn State. Penn State is the mother of all teachable moments for the bystander approach. You had so many situations in that realm where men in powerful positions failed to act to protect children, in this case, boys. It's unbelievable, really. But when you get into it, you realize there are pressures on men. There are constraints within peer cultures on men, which is why we need to encourage men to break through those pressures.
Pogledajte Univerzitet u Pensilvaniji. On je najbolji od svih momenata za podučavanje posmatračkog pristupa. Imali ste toliko situacija u toj oblasti gde muškarci na visokim pozicijama nisu uspeli da odbrane decu, u ovom slučaju dečake. Neverovatno je, zaista. Ali kad uđete u tu priču, shvatite da postoje veliki pritisci na muškarce. Postoje prepreke za njih u vršnjačkim kulturama što je razlog zašto treba da ohrabrujemo muškarce da se odupru tim ograničenjima.
And one of the ways to do that is to say there's an awful lot of men who care deeply about these issues. I know this, I work with men, and I've been working with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of men for many decades now. It's scary, when you think about it, how many years. But there's so many men who care deeply about these issues, but caring deeply is not enough. We need more men with the guts, with the courage, with the strength, with the moral integrity to break our complicit silence and challenge each other and stand with women and not against them.
Jedan od načina da se to učini je da se kaže da postoji ogroman broj muškaraca kojima je stalo do tih problema. Znam to. Radim sa muškarcima, i radio sam sa desetinama hiljada, stotinama hiljada muškaraca već mnogo decenija. Strašno je kada mislite o tome, koliko je je to godina. Ali tu je toliko mnogo muškaraca kojima je istinski stalo do ovih problema, ali sama briga nije dovoljna. Treba nam više muškaraca sa smelošću, sa hrabrošću, snagom, moralnim integritetom da prekinu kolektivno ćutanje i izazovu jedni druge i stanu uz žene, a ne protiv njih.
By the way, we owe it to women. There's no question about it. But we also owe it to our sons. We also owe it to young men who are growing up all over the world in situations where they didn't make the choice to be a man in a culture that tells them that manhood is a certain way. They didn't make the choice. We that have a choice, have an opportunity and a responsibility to them as well.
Inače, mi to i dugujemo ženama. Nema sumnje. Ali dugujemo i svojim sinovima. Takođe, dugujemo mladim muškarcima koji rastu širom sveta u situacijama gde nisu izabrali da budu muškarci u kulturi koja im govori da je muškost određeni način. Oni to nisu odabrali. Mi koji imamo izbor, imamo i priliku i odgovornost i za njih.
I hope that, going forward, men and women, working together, can begin the change and the transformation that will happen so that future generations won't have the level of tragedy that we deal with on a daily basis.
Nadam se da će ubuduće muškarci i žene, radeći zajedno, moći da započnu promenu i preobražaj koji će se desiti tako da buduće generacije neće imati onaj nivo tragedije sa kojim se mi svakodnevno borimo.
I know we can do it, we can do better.
Znam da možemo to. Možemo bolje.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam mnogo. (Aplauz)